Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Al-Qaeda 'underpants' bomber was working for CIA

24567…10

Comments

  • #32
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I know that dude... what the hell are you doing saying it ??

    You're supposed to be on the other team man !!. You're wrecking the game :mad:
    :)

    Sure nobody (outside the target audience) buys that stuff.


  • #33
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭reprazant


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    They say there is some truth to every lie.

    Or... they are telling the truth when the say the same things I believe to be true.

    Everything else is a lie because I don't believe it.


  • #34
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    You do realise that this "underwear" bomber was a double-agent? I'm not sure if you have a learning difficulty, but the nature of a double-agent is to infiltrate, so the whole thing appears to be very successful.

    Also, can you show us how the original "underwear bomber" was a staged incident, considering the man is serving life.


  • #35
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    There will be no civil war with Obama.

    He knows at the touch of a button who his enemies are him from social media and mobile phone records. All he needs to do is track them down with his storm troopers and forward them on to Fema concentration camps.
    Unless he/they wants a civil war. :)


  • #36
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You do realise that this "underwear" bomber was a double-agent? I'm not sure if you have a learning difficulty, but the nature of a double-agent is to infiltrate, so the whole thing appears to be very successful.

    Also, can you show us how the original "underwear bomber" was a staged incident, considering the man is serving life.


    what bud ?:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    superluck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭superluck


    jonny7 wrote:
    ...so the whole thing appears to be very successful.

    I agree. What is the big surprise? Double agents work in terrorist organisations all the time. That he carried a bomb on board a plane and tried to detonate it with the full knowledge of security services isn't all that shocking.

    Atleast our airports are now much safer with security scanners in place, thanks to the underwear bomber and CIA.


  • #38
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    reprazant wrote: »
    Or... they are telling the truth when the say the same things I believe to be true.

    Everything else is a lie because I don't believe it.


    Not necessarily. They could be mis/disinformed, mistaken, barking up the wrong tree of simply stupid. They don't need to be liars. Cool answer though, you whitty chicken.


  • #39
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    superluck wrote: »
    I agree. What is the big surprise? Double agents work in terrorist organisations all the time. That he carried a bomb on board a plane and tried to detonate it with the full knowledge of security services isn't all that shocking.

    Atleast our airports are now much safer with security scanners in place, thanks to the underwear bomber and CIA.

    He didn't try to detonate it.
    The informant then turned the device over to his handlers and has left Yemen, the officials told the news agency.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/underwear-bomber-working-for-cia


  • #40
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    superluck wrote: »
    I agree. What is the big surprise? Double agents work in terrorist organisations all the time. That he carried a bomb on board a plane and tried to detonate it with the full knowledge of security services isn't all that shocking.

    Atleast our airports are now much safer with security scanners in place, thanks to the underwear bomber and CIA.


    Safer ? Like you were in terrible danger before. ffs

    You are more likely to win the lottery many times before you are hurt by terrorism. However, CIA agents bringing bombs onto planes might lessen those odds.
    Don't be so freaking dramatic.
    4 year olds being molested by TSA at airports, does not make you any safer.


  • #41
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You do realise that this "underwear" bomber was a double-agent? I'm not sure if you have a learning difficulty, but the nature of a double-agent is to infiltrate, so the whole thing appears to be very successful.

    Also, can you show us how the original "underwear bomber" was a staged incident, considering the man is serving life.
    It doesn't take too much to figure it out.

    Classic case of

    5ts76f.jpg

    Problem is created: The boogyman appears on an Airplane with a "bomb"

    Reaction: Wide spread international panic, instant fear of death :eek:

    Solution. Another step closer towards global electronic enslavement.

    Fore all we know, Richard Reid is probably sunning himself in Bermuda under a new identity along with all the others that have been caught with their false flag scare mongering tactics.

    Only the Obama following sheeple that watch American main stream media would fall for this stuff and actually believe it. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    superluck wrote: »
    I agree. What is the big surprise? Double agents work in terrorist organisations all the time. That he carried a bomb on board a plane and tried to detonate it with the full knowledge of security services isn't all that shocking.

    Atleast our airports are now much safer with security scanners in place, thanks to the underwear bomber and CIA.


    Cant believe I missed that bit. LOLLOLLOLLOL :pac:

    Yeah, thats safe.

    Back to AH, much safer there.


  • #43
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Don't be so freaking dramatic.
    4 year olds being molested at airports, does not make any safer.

    There is an almost universal loathing for the TSA, however airport security around the world is needed.


  • #44
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,025 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    I'd love to know how many double agents were in the irish government, the IRA and Sin fein over the years....i'd say the truth would be shocking. I'd say it went up as far as leadership.


  • #45
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    There is an almost universal loathing for the TSA, however airport security around the world is needed.


    It was fine pre 911.

    Even if it wasnt an inside job. There is no need for that much increased security.

    It's all bull.


  • #46
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Safer ? Like you were in terrible danger before. ffs

    You are more likely to win the lottery many times before you are hurt by terrorism.
    This is true, but it's slightly circular in that it's very difficult to carry off a successful attack these days because of all the (very annoying) security. If we were back in the days where you rocked up an hour before the flight and didn't pass through a metal detector, there could be planes blown up every day. Every time a plot succeeds (or nearly does), the rules get tightened again.

    I hope those people who brought/tried to bring the explosives in the drinking bottles - causing misery for everyone on every flight today - spend a long, miserable life in dreadful conditions, followed by a healthy stint in hell.


  • #47
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    I'd love to know how many double agents were in the irish government, the IRA and Sin fein over the years....i'd say the truth would be shocking. I'd say it went up as far as leadership.

    I'd love to know how many were on the 911 flights.


  • #48
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    It doesn't take too much to figure it out.

    Classic case of

    5ts76f.jpg

    Problem is created: The boogyman appears on an Airplane with a "bomb"

    Reaction: Wide spread international panic, instant fear of death :eek:

    Solution. Another step closer towards global electronic enslavement.

    Fore all we know, Richard Reid is probably sunning himself in Bermuda under a new identity along with all the others that have been caught with their false flag scare mongering tactics.

    Only the Obama following sheeple that watch American main stream media would fall for this stuff and actually believe it. :)

    Richard Reid is not the underwear bomber.


  • #49
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    It was fine pre 911.

    So - lapses security allowed four planes to be hijacked and three of them used as improvised weapons to attack buildings therefore security was "fine".


    Explain that line of thought some more, because there is no possible way how I'm reading that sentence makes sense.


  • #50
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I'd love to know how many were on the 911 flights.
    You have to admire their dedication to the New World Order if they sacrificed themselves for it. Either they were evil saints (which doesn't make much sense to me), or just saints.


  • #51
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This is true, but it's slightly circular in that it's very difficult to carry off a successful attack these days because of all the (very annoying) security. If we were back in the days where you rocked up an hour before the flight and didn't pass through a metal detector, there could be planes blown up every day. Every time a plot succeeds (or nearly does), the rules get tightened again.

    I hope those people who brought/tried to bring the explosives in the drinking bottles - causing misery for everyone on every flight today - spend a long, miserable life in dreadful conditions, followed by a healthy stint in hell.


    I'd say the odd of being killed by terrorism pre 911, were less than now, wouldnt you ?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    You have to admire their dedication to the New World Order if they sacrificed themselves for it. Either they were evil saints (which doesn't make much sense to me), or just saints.


    They could be duped into it. Training exercize, war games, sacrifice... MK ultra..


  • #53
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    hooradiation wrote: »
    So - lapses security allowed four planes to be hijacked and three of them used as improvised weapons to attack buildings therefore security was "fine".


    Explain that line of thought some more, because there is no possible way how I'm reading that sentence makes sense.


    Matter of opinion. I believe it was an inside job, you dont.


  • #54
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Richard Reid is not the underwear bomber.

    That point was in response to this:
    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You do realise there is a man serving life for attempting the same (and almost succeeding).


  • #55
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    hooradiation wrote: »
    So - lapses security allowed four planes to be hijacked and three of them used as improvised weapons to attack buildings therefore security was "fine".


    Explain that line of thought some more, because there is no possible way how I'm reading that sentence makes sense.

    Watch this and tell me you could get a poxy box cutter through, if you wanted.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEoc_1ZkfA


  • #56
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    It was fine pre 911.

    No it wasn't. The Israeli's have had this kind of air security for decades, out of necessity.

    Air security always increases after terrorist incidents, especially large attacks like Lockerbie.


  • #57
    Jonny7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    That point was in response to this:

    You do realise there is an "underwear" bomber who was caught in the act of trying to blow up a plane? he is currently serving life.


  • #58
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    You do realise there is an "underwear" bomber who was caught in the act of trying to blow up a plane? he is currently serving life.

    Poor lad, probably hadnt a clue what was happening. Thought it was a training excersize.

    Ah well..


  • #59
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    No it wasn't.

    Ok, beefed up airport security was not fine. Glad we agree on something.

    Maybe they should get passengers to swear on a bible before boarding. Works for giving evidence in courts.


  • #60
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Matter of opinion. I believe it was an inside job, you dont.

    That doesn't change anything, if we were to accept that it was an "inside job" (and I don't before anyone gets any ideas) then the point still stands. Pre 9/11 security allowed people to hijack those planes.

    Now unless we're to argue that the 'conspiracy' extended to allowing the men on those flights unprecedented freedom of movement within the airport that day then all it shows is that people with the intent to hijack planes had a far easier time of it, pre 9/11.

    Regardless if you believe the inside job hypothesis or not, the claim that security was "just fine" is dubious at best.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I'd say the odd of being killed by terrorism pre 911, were less than now, wouldnt you ?
    The numbers are so small either side of it, it probably wouldn't stand up to statistical analysis tbh.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement